Yes I Can Essay Example

Yes I Can Essay This paper is concerned with those actions of business ? rms which have harmful e? ects on others. The standard example is that of a factory the smoke from which has harmful e? ects on those occupying neighbouring properties. The economic analysis of such a situation has usually proceeded in terms of a divergence between the private and social product of the factory, in which economists have largely followed the treatment of Pigou in The Economies of Welfare. The conclusion to which this kind of analysis seems to have led most economists is that it would be desirable to make the owner of the factory liable for the damage caused to those injured by the smoke, or alternatively, to place a tax on the factory owner varying with the amount of smoke produced and equivalent in money terms to the damage it would cause, or ? ally, to exclude the factory from residential districts (and presumably from other areas in which the emission of smoke would have harmful e? ects on others). It is my contention that the suggested courses of action are inappropriate, in that they lead to results which are not necessarily, or even usually, desirable. II. THE RECIPROCAL NATURE OF THE PROBLEM The traditional approach has tended to obscure the nature of the choice that has to be made. The question is commonly thought of as one in which A in? cts harm on B and what has to be decided is: how should we restrain A? But this is wrong. We are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature. To avoid the harm to, B would in? ict harm on A. The real question that has to be decided is: should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A? The problem is to avoid the more serious harm. I instanced in my previous article the case of a confectioner the noise and vibrations from whose machinery disturbed a doctor in his work. To avoid harming the doctor would in? ict harm on the confectioner. We will write a custom essay sample on Yes I Can specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Yes I Can specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Yes I Can specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The problem posed by this case was essentially whether it was worth while, as a result of restricting the methods of production which could be used by the confectioner, to secure more doctoring at the cost of a reduced supply of confectionery products. Another example is a? orded by the problem of straying cattle which destroy crops on neighbouring land. If it is inevitable that some cattle will stray, all increase in the supply of meat can only 1 COASE: The Problem of Social Cost be obtained at the expense of a decrease in the supply of crops. The nature of the choice is clear: meat or crops. What answer should be given is, of course, not clear unless we know the value of what is obtained as well as the value of what is sacri? ced to obtain it. To give another example, Professor George J. Stigler instances the contamination of a stream. If we assume that the harmful e? ect of the pollution is that it kills the ? sh, the question to be decided is: is the value of the ? sh lost greater or less than the value of the product which the contamination of the stream makes possible. It goes almost without saying that this problem has to be looked at in total and at the margin. III. THE PRICING SYSTEM WITH LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE I propose to start my analysis by examining a case in which most economists would presumably agree that the problem would be solved in a compeletely satisfactory manner: when the damaging business has to pay for all damage caused and the pricing system works smoothly (strictly this means that the operation of a pricing system is without cost). A good example of the problem under discussion is a? orded by the case of straying cattle which destroy crops growing on neighbouring land. Let us suppose that a farmer and cattle-raiser are operating on neighbouring properties. Let us further suppose that, without any fencing between the properties, an increase in the size of the cattle-raiser’s herd increases the total damage to the farmer’s crops. What happens to the marginal damage as the size of the herd increases is another matter. This depends on whether the cattle tend to follow one another or to roam side by side, on whether they tend to be more or less restless as the size of the herd increases and on other similar factors. For my immediate purpose, it is immaterial what assumption is made about marginal damage as the size of the herd increases. To simplify the argument, I propose to use an arithmetical example. I shall assume that the annual cost of fencing the farmer’s property is $9 and the price of the crop is $1 per ton. Also, I assume that the relation between the number of cattle in the herd and the annual crop loss is as follows: NUMBER IN HERD (STEERS) 1 2 3 4 ANNUAL CROP LOSS (TONS) 1 3 6 10 CROP LOSS PER ADDITIONAL STEER (TONS) 1 2 3 4 Given that the cattle-raiser is liable for the damage caused, the additional annual cost imposed on the cattle-raiser if he increased his herd from, say, 2 to 3 steers is $3 and in deciding on the size of the herd, he will take this into 2 COASE: The Problem of Social Cost account along with his other costs. That is, he will not increase the size of the herd unless the value of the additional meat produced (assuming that the cattle-raiser slaughters the cattle) is greater than the additional costs that this will entail, including the value of the additional crops destroyed. Of course, if, by the employment of dogs, herdsmen, aeroplanes, mobile radio and other means, the amount of damage can be reduced, these means will be adopted when their cost is less than the value of the crop which they prevent being lost. Given that the annual cost of fencing is $9, the cattle-raiser who wished to have a herd with 4 steers or more would pay for fencing to be erected and maintained, assuming that other means of attaining the same end would not do so more cheaply. When the fence is erected, the marginal cost due to the liability for damage becomes zero, except to the extent that an increase in the size of the herd necessitates a stronger and therefore more expensive fence because more steers are liable to lean against it at the same time. But, of course, it may be cheaper for the cattle-raiser not to fence and to pay for the damaged crops, as in my arithmetical example, with 3 or fewer steers. It might be thought that the fact that the cattle-raiser would pay for all crops damaged would lead the farmer to increase his planting if a cattle-raiser came to occupy the neighbouring property. But this is not so. If the crop was previously sold in conditions of perfect competition, marginal cost was equal to price for the amount of planting undertaken and any expansion would have reduced the pro? s of the farmer. In the new situation, the existence of crop damage would mean that the farmer would sell less on the open market but his receipts for a given production would remain the same, since the cattle-raiser would pay the market price for any crop damaged. Of course, if cattle-raising commonly involved the destruction of crops, the coming into existence of a cattle-raising industry might raise the price of the crops involve d and farmers would then extend their planting. But I wish to con? ne my attention to the individual farmer. I have said that the occupation of a neighbouring property by a cattleraiser would not cause the amount of production, or perhaps more exactly the amount of planting, by the farmer to increase. In fact, if the cattle-raising has any e? ect, it will be to decrease the amount of planting. The reason for this is that, for any given tract of land, if the value of the crop damaged is so great that the receipts from the sale of the undamaged crop are less than the total costs of cultivating that tract of land, it will be pro? table for the farmer and the cattle-raiser to make a bargain whereby that tract of land is left uncultivated. This can be made clear by means of an arithmetical example. Assume initially that the value of the crop obtained from cultivating a given tract of land is $12 and that the cost incurred in cultivating this tract of land is $10, the net gain from cultivating the land being $2. I assume for purposes of simplicity that the farmer owns the land. Now assume that the cattle-raiser starts operations 3 COASE: The Problem of Social Cost on the neighbouring property and that the value of the crops damaged is $I. In this case $11 is obtained by the farmer from sale on the market and $1 is obtained from the cattle-raiser for damage su? red and the net gain remains $2. Now suppose that the cattle-raiser ? nds it pro? table to increase the size of his herd, even though the amount of damage rises to $3; which means that the value of the additional meat production is greater than the additional costs, including the additional $2 payment for damage. But the total payment for damage is now $3. The net gain to the farmer from cultivating the land is still $2. The cattle-raiser would be better o? if the farmer would agree not to cultivate his land for any payment less than $3. The farmer would be agreeable to not cultivating the land for any payment greater than $2. There is clearly room for a mutually satisfactory bargain which would lead to the abandonment of cultivation. * But the same argument applies not only to the whole tract cultivated by the fanner but also to any subdivision of it. Suppose, for example, that the cattle have a well-de? ned route, say, to a brook or to a shady area. In these circumstances, the amount of damage to the crop along the route may well be great and if so, it could be that the farmer and the cattle-raiser would ? nd it pro? table to make a bargain whereby the farmer would agree not to cultivate this strip of land. But this raises a further possibility. Suppose that there is such a well de? ned route. Suppose further that the value of the crop that would be obtained by cultivating this strip of land is $10 but that the cost of cultivation is $11. In the absence of the cattle-raiser, the land would not be cultivated. However, given the presence of the cattle-raiser, it could well be that if the strip was cultivated, the whole crop would be destroyed by the cattle. In which case, the cattle-raiser would be forced to pay $10 to the farmer. It is true that the farmer would lose $1. But the cattle-raiser would lose $10. Clearly this is a * The argument in the text has proceeded on the assumption that the alternative to cultivation of the crop is abandonment of cultivation altogether. But this need not be so. There may be crops which are less liable to damage by cattle but which would not be as pro? table as the crop grown in the absence of damage. Thus. if the cultivation of a new crop would yield a return to the farmer of $1 instead of $2, and the size of the herd which would cause $3 damage with the old crop would cause $I damage with the new crop, it would be pro? able to the cattle-raiser to pay any sum less than $2 to induce the farmer to change his crop (since this would reduce damage liability from $3 to $1) and it would be pro? table for the farmer to do so if the amount received was more than $1 (the reduction in his return caused by switching crops). In fact, there would be room for a mutually satisfactory bargain in all cases in which change of crop w ould reduce the amount of damage by more than it reduces the value of the crop (excluding damage)—in all cases, that is, in which a change in the crop cultivated would lead to an increase in the value of production. COASE: The Problem of Social Cost situation which is not likely to last inde? nitely since neither party would want this to happen. The aim of the farmer would be to induce the cattle-raiser to make a payment in return for an agreement to leave this land uncultivated. The farmer would not be able to obtain a payment greater than the cost of fencing o? this piece of land nor so high as to lead the cattle-raiser to abandon the use of the neighbouring property. What payment would in fact be made would depend on the shrewdness of the farmer and the cattle-raiser as bargainers. But as the payment would not be so high as to cause the cattle-raiser to abandon this location and as it would not vary with the size of the herd, such an agreement would not a? ect the allocation of resources but would merely alter the distribution of income and wealth as between the cattle-raiser and the farmer. I think it is clear that if the cattle-raiser is liable for damage caused and the pricing system works smoothly, the reduction in the value of production elsewhere will be taken into account in computing the additional cost involved in increasing the size of the herd. This cost will be weighed against the value of the additional meat production and, given perfect competition in the cattle industry, the allocation of resources in cattle-raising will be optimal. What needs to be emphasized is that the fall in the value of production elsewhere which would be taken into account in the costs of the cattle-raiser may well be less than the damage which the cattle would cause to the crops in the ordinary course of events. This is because it is possible, as a result of market transactions, to discontinue cultivation of the land. This is desirable in all cases in which the damage that the cattle would cause, and for which the cattle-raiser would be willing to pay, exceeds the amount which the farmer would pay for use of the land. In conditions of perfect competition, the amount which the farmer would pay for the use of the land is equal to the di? rence between the value of the total production when the factors are employed on this land and the value of the additional product yielded in their next best use (which would be what the farmer would have to pay for the factors). If damage exceeds the amount the farmer would pay for the use of the land, the value of the additional product of the factors employed elsewhere would exceed the value of the total product in this use after damage is taken into account. It follows that it would be desirable to abandon cultivation of the land and to release the factors employed for production elsewhere. A procedure which merely provided for payment for damage to the crop caused by the cattle but which did not allow for the possibility of cultivation being discontinued would result in too small an employment of factors of production in cattle-raising and too large an employment of factors in cultivation of the crop. But given the possibility of market transactions, a situation in which damage to crops exceeded the rent of the land would not endure. Whether the cattle-raiser pays the farmer to leave the land uncultivated or himself rents the land by paying the land-owner an 5 COASE: The Problem of Social Cost amount slightly greater than the farmer would pay (if the farmer was himself renting the land), the ? nal result would be the same and would maximise the value of production. Even when the farmer is induced to plant crops which it would not be pro? table to cultivate for sale on the market, this will be a purely short-term phenomenon and may be expected to lead to an agreement under which the planting will cease. The cattle-raiser will remain in that location and the marginal cost of meat production will be the same as before, thus having no long-run e? ect on the allocation of resources. IV. THE PRICING SYSTEM WITH NO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE I now turn to the case in which, although the pricing system is assumed to work smoothly (that is, costlessly), the damaging business is not liable for any of the damage which it causes. This business does not have to make a payment to those damaged by its actions. I propose to show that the allocation of resources will be the same in this case as it was when the damaging business was liable for damage caused. As I showed in the previous case that the allocation of resources was optimal, it will not be necessary to repeat this part of the argument. I return to the case of the farmer and the cattle-raiser. The farmer would su? er increased damage to his crop as the size of the herd increased. Suppose that the size of the cattle-raiser’s herd is 3 steers (and that this is the size of the herd that would be maintained if crop damage was not taken into account). Then the farmer would be willing to pay up to $3 if the cattle-raiser would reduce his herd to 2 steers, up to $5 if the herd were reduced to 1 steer and would pay up to $6 if cattle-raising was abandoned. The cattle-raiser would therefore receive 53 from the farmer if he kept 2 steers instead of 3. This $3 foregone is therefore part of the cost incurred in keeping the third steer. Whether the $3 is a payment which the cattle-raiser has to make if he adds the third steer to his herd (which it would be if the cattle-raiser was liable to the farmer for damage caused to the crop) or whether it is a sum of money which he would have received if he did not keep a third steer (which it would be if the cattle-raiser was not liable to the farmer for damage caused to the crop) does not a? ct the ? nal result. In both cases $3 is part of the cost of adding a third steer, to be included along with the other costs. If the increase in the value of production in cattle-raising through increasing the size of the herd from 2 to 3 is greater than the additional costs that have to be incurred (including the $3 damage to crops), the size of the herd will be increased. Otherwise, it will not. The size of t he herd will be the same whether the cattle-raiser is liable for damage caused to the crop or not. It may be argued that the assumed starting point—a herd of 3 steers—was arbitrary. And this is true. But the farmer would not wish to pay to avoid crop damage which the cattle-raiser would not be able to cause. For example, the maximum annual payment which the farmer could be induced to pay could not 6 COASE: The Problem of Social Cost exceed $9. the annual cost of fencing. And the farmer would only be willing to pay this sum if it did not reduce his earnings to a level that would cause him to abandon cultivation of this particular tract of land. Furthermore, the farmer would only be willing to pay this amount if he believed that, in the absence of any payment by him, the size of the herd maintained by the cattle-raiser would be 4 or more steers. Let us assume that this is the case. Then the farmer would be willing to pay up to $3 if the cattle-raiser would reduce his herd to 3 steers, up to $6 if the herd were reduced to 2 steers, up to $8 if one steer only were kept and up to $9 if cattle-raising were abandoned. It will be noticed that the change in the starting point has not altered the amount which would accrue to the cattle-raiser if he reduced the size of his herd by any given amount. It is still true that the cattle-raiser could receive an additional $3 from the farmer if he agreed to reduce his herd from 3 steers to 2 and that the $3 represents the value of the crop that would be destroyed by adding the third steer to the herd. Although a di? erent belief on the part of the farmer (whether justi? ed or not) about the size of the herd that the cattle-raiser would maintain in the absence of payments from him may a? ct the total payment he can be induced to pay, it is not true that this di? erent belief would have any e? ect on the size of the herd that the cattle-raiser will actually keep. This will be the same as it would be if the cattle-raiser had to pay for damage caused by his cattle, since a receipt foregone of a given amount is the equivalent of a payment of the same amount. It mi ght be thought that it would pay the cattle-raiser to increase his herd above the size that he would wish to maintain once a bargain had been made, in order to induce the farmer to make a larger total payment. And this may be true. It is similar in nature to the action of the farmer (when the cattle-raiser was liable for damage) in cultivating land on which, as a result of an agreement with the cattle-raiser, planting would subsequently be abandoned (including land which would not be cultivated at all in the absence of cattle-raising). But such manoeuvres are preliminaries to an agreement and do not a? ect the longrun equilibrium position, which is the same whether or not the cattle-raiser is held responsible for the crop damage brought about by his cattle. It is necessary to know whether the damaging business is liable or not for damage caused since without the establishment of this initial delimitation of rights there can be no market transactions to transfer and recombine them. But the ultimate result (which maximises the value of production) is independent of the legal position if the pricing system is assumed to work without cost. V. THE PROBLEM ILLUSTRATED ANEW The harmful e? ects of the activities of a business can assume a wide variety of forms. An early English case concerned a building which, by obstructing currents of air, hindered the operation of a windmill. A recent case in Florida 7 COASE: The Problem of Social Cost concerned a building which cast a shadow on the cabana, swimming pool and sunbathing areas of a neighbouring hotel. The problem of straying cattle and the damaging of crops which was the subject of detailed examination in the two preceding sections, although it may have appeared to be rather a special case, is in fact but one example of a problem which arises in many di? erent guises. To clarify the nature of my argument and to demonstrate its general applicability, I propose to illustrate it anew by reference to four actual cases. Let us ? rst reconsider the case of Sturges v. Bridgman which I used as an illustration of the general problem In my article on â€Å"The Federal Communications Commission. † In this case, a confectioner (in Wigmore Street) used two mortars and pestles in connection with his business (one had been in operation in the same position for more than 60 years and the other for more than 26 years). A doctor then came to occupy neighbouring premises (in Wimpole Street). The confectioner’s machinery caused the doctor no harm until, eight years after he had ? rst occupied the premises, he built a consulting room at the end of his garden right against the confectioner’s kitchen. It was then found that the noise and vibration caused by the confectioner’s machinery made it di? cult for the doctor to use his new consulting room. â€Å"In particular . . . the noise prevented him from examining his patients by auscultation for diseases of the chest. He also found it impossible to engage with e? ect in any occupation which required thought and attention. The doctor therefore brought a legal action to force the confectioner to stop using his machinery. The courts had little di? culty in granting the doctor the injunction he sought. â€Å"Individual cases of hardship may occur in the strict carrying out of the principle upon which we found our judgment, but the negation of the principle would lead even more to individual hardship, and wo uld at the same time produce a prejudicial e? ect upon the development of land for residential purposes. † The court’s decision established that the doctor had the right to prevent the confectioner from using his machinery. But, of course, it would have been possible to modify the arrangements envisaged in the legal ruling by means of a bargain between the parties. The doctor would have been willing to waive his right and allow the machinery to continue in operation if the confectioner would have paid him a sum of money which was greater than the loss of income which he would su? er from having to move to a more costly or less convenient location or from having to curtail his activities at this location or, as was suggested as a possibility, from having to build a separate wall which would deaden the noise and vibration. The confectioner would have been willing to do this if the amount he would have to pay the doctor was less than the fall in income he would su? er if he had to change his mode of operation at this location, abandon his operation or move his confectionery business to some other location. The solution of the problem depends essentially on whether the continued use of the machinery adds more to the confectioner’s income than it subtracts from 8 COASE: The Problem of Social Cost the doctor’s. But now consider the situation if the confectioner had won the case. The confectioner would then have had the right to continue operating his noise and vibration-generating machinery without having to pay anything to the doctor. The boot would have been on the other foot: the doctor would have had to pay the confectioner to induce him to stop using the machinery. If the doctor’s income would have fallen more through continuance of the use of this machinery than it added to the income of the confectioner, there would clearly be room for a bargain whereby the doctor paid the confectioner to stop using the machinery. That is to say, the circumstances in which it would not pay the confectioner to continue to use the machinery and to compensate the doctor for the losses that this would bring (if the doctor had the right to prevent the confectioner’s using his machinery) would be those in which it would be in the interest of the doctor to make a payment to the confectioner which would induce him to discontinue the use of the machinery (if the confectioner had the right to operate the machinery). The basic conditions are exactly the same in this case as they were in the example of the cattle which destroyed crops. With costless market transactions, the decision of the courts concerning liability for damage would be without e? ect on the allocation of resources. It was of course the view of the judges that they were a? ecting the working of the economic system-and in a desirable direction. Any other decision would have had â€Å"a prejudicial e? ect upon the development of land for residential purposes,† an argument which was elaborated by examining the example of a forge operating on a barren moor. which was later developed for residential purposes. The judges’ view that they were settling how the land was to be used would be true only in the case in which the costs of carrying out the necessary market transactions exceeded the gain which might be achieved by any rearrangement of rights. And it would be desirable to preserve the areas (Wimpole Street or the moor) for residential or professional use (by giving non-industrial users the right to stop the noise, vibration, smoke, etc. , by injunction) only if the value of the additional residential facilities obtained was greater than the value of cakes or iron lost. But of this the judges seem to have been unaware. The reasoning employed by the courts in determining legal rights will often seem strange to an economist because many of the factors on which the decision turns are, to an economist, irrelevant. Because of this, situations which are, from an economic point of view, identical will be treated quite di? erently by the courts. The economic problem in all cases of harmful e? ects is how to maximise the value of production. In the case of Bass v. Gregory fresh air was drawn in through the well which facilitated the production of beer but foul air was expelled through the well which made life in the adjoining houses less pleasant. The economic problem was to decide which to choose: a lower cost of beer and worsened amenities in adjoining houses or a higher cost of beer and improved amenities. In deciding this question, the â€Å"doctrine of lost grant† is 9 COASE: The Problem of Social Cost about as relevant as the colour of the judge’s eyes. But it has to be remembered that the immediate question faced by the courts is not what shall be done by whom but who has the legal right to do what. It is always possible to modify by transactions on the market the initial legal delimitation of rights. And, of course, if such market transactions are costless, such a rearrangement of rights will always take place if it would lead to an increase in the value of production. VI. THE COST OF MARKET TRANSACTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT The argument has proceeded up to this point on the assumption (explicit in Sections III and IV and tacit in Section V) that there were no costs involved in carrying out market transactions. This is, of course, a very unrealistic assumption. In order to carry out a market transaction it is necessary to discover who it is that one wishes to deal with, to inform people that one wishes to deal and on what terms, to conduct negotiations leading up to a bargain, to draw up the contract, to undertake the inspection needed to make sure that the terms of the contract are being observed and so on. These operations are often extremely costly, su? ciently costly at any rate to prevent many transactions that would be carried out in a world in which the pricing system worked without cost. In earlier sections, when dealing with the problem of the rearrangement of legal rights through the market, it was argued that such a rearrangement would be made through the market whenever this would lead to an increase in the value of production. But this assumed costless market transactions. Once the costs of carrying out market transactions are taken into account it is clear that such a rearrangement of rights will only be undertaken when the increase in the value of production consequent upon the rearrangement is greater than the costs which would be involved in bringing it about. When it is less, the granting of an injunction (or the knowledge that it would be granted) or the liability to pay damages may result in an activity being discontinued (or may prevent its being started) which would be undertaken if market transactions were costless. In these conditions the initial delimitation of legal rights does have an e? ect on the e? ciency with which the economic system operates. One arrangement of rights may bring about a greater value of production than any other. But unless this is the arrangement of rights established by the legal system, the costs of reaching the same result by altering and combining rights through the market may be so great that this optimal arrangement of rights, and the greater value of production which it would bring, may never be achieved. The part played by economic considerations in the process of delimiting legal rights will be discussed in the next section. In this section, I will take the initial delimitation of rights and the costs of carrying out market transactions as given. It is clear that an alternative form of economic organisation which could achieve the same result at less cost than would be incurred by using the market 10 COASE: The Problem of Social Cost would enable the value of production to be raised. As I explained many years ago, the ? rm represents such an alternative to organising production through market transactions. Within the ? rm individual bargains between the various cooperating factors of production are eliminated and for a market transaction is substituted an administrative decision. The rearrangement of production then takes place without the need for bargains between the owners of the factors of production. A landowner who has control of a large tract of land may devote his land to various uses taking into account the e? ect that the interrelations of the various activities will have on the net return of the land, thus rendering unnecessary bargains between those undertaking the various activities. Owners of a large building or of several adjoining properties in a given area may act in much the same way. In e? ect, using our earlier terminology, the ? rm would acquire the legal rights of all the parties and the rearrangement of activities would not follow on a rearrangement of rights by contract, but as a result of an administrative decision as to how the rights should be used. It does not, of course, follow that the administrative costs of organising a transaction through a ? rm are inevitably less than the costs of the market transactions which are superseded. But where contracts are peculiarly di? ult to draw up and an attempt to describe what the parties have agreed to do or not to do (e. g. the amount and kind of a smell or noise that they may make or will not make) would necessitate a lengthy and highly involved document, and, where, as is probable, a long-term contract would be desirable, it would be hardly surprising if the emergence of a ? rm or the extension of the activities of an existing ? rm was not the solution adopted on many occasions to deal with the problem of harm ful e? ects. This solution would be adopted whenever the administrative costs of the ? m

The Mississippi Burning Case

The Mississippi Burning Case A  civil rights movement  in 1964, named Freedom Summer, was a campaign launched to get blacks in the southern United States registered to vote. Thousands of students and civil rights activists, both white and black, joined the organization,  Congress on Racial Equality  (CORE) and traveled to southern states to register voters. In was in this atmosphere that three civil rights workers were killed by members of the  Ku Klux Klan. Michael Schwerner and James Chaney Michael Schwerner, a 24-year old from Brooklyn, New York, and 21-year old James Chaney from Meridian, Mississippi, were working in and around Neshoba County, Mississippi, to register blacks to vote, opening Freedom Schools and organizing black boycotts of white-owned businesses in Meridan. The activities of the civil rights workers enraged the area Klu Klux Klan and plan to rid the area of the more prominent activists was in the works. Michael Schwerner, or Goatee and Jew-Boy as the Klan referred to him, became a prime target of the Ku Klux Klan, after his success of organizing the Meridan boycott and his determination to register the local blacks to vote was more successful than the Klans attempts to put fear into the  black  communities. Plan 4 The Ku Klux Klan was very active in Mississippi during the 1960s and many of the members included local businessmen, law enforcement, and prominent men in the communities. Sam Bowers was the Imperial Wizard of the White Knights during Freedom Summer and had an intense dislike for Schwerner. In May 1964, the Lauderdale and Neshoba KKK members received word from Bowers that Plan 4 was activated. Plan 4 was to get rid of Schwerner. The Klan learned that Schwerner had a meeting scheduled on the evening of June 16 with members at the Mount Zion Church in Longdale, Mississippi. The church was to be a future location for one of the many Freedom Schools that were opening throughout Mississippi. Members of the church held a business meeting that evening and as the 10 were leaving the church around 10 p.m. that night they met face to face with more than 30 klansmen lined up with shotguns. The Burning of the Church The Klan was misinformed, however, because Schwerner was actually in Oxford, Ohio. Frustrated at not finding the activist, the Klan began to beat the church members and burned the wood-framed church to the ground. Schwerner learned of the fire and he, along with James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman, who were all attending a three-day CORE seminar in Oxford, decided to return to Longdale to investigate the Mount Zion Church incident. On June 20, the three, in a blue CORE-owned Ford station wagon, headed south. The Warning Schwerner was very aware of the danger of being a civil rights worker in Mississippi, especially in Neshoba County, which had a reputation as being particularly unsafe. After stopping overnight in Meridian, MS, the group headed straight for Neshoba Country to inspect the burned-out church and meet with some of the members who had been beaten. During the visits, they learned the real target of the KKK was Schwerner, and they were warned that some local white men were trying to find him. Klan Member Sheriff Cecil Price At 3 p.m. the three in the highly visible blue Core-wagon, set off to return to Meridan, Ms. Stationed at the Core office in Meridian was Core worker, Sue Brown, who was told by Schwerner if the three werent back by 4:30 p.m., then they were in trouble. Deciding that Highway 16 was a safer route, the three turned onto it, headed west, through Philadelphia, Ms, back to Meridan. A few miles outside of Philadelphia, Klan member, Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price, spotted the CORE wagon on the highway. The Arrest Not only did Price spot the car, but he also recognized the driver, James Chaney. The Klan hated Chaney, who was a black activist and a born Mississippian. Price pulled the wagon over and arrested and jailed the three students for being under suspicion of arson in the Mount Zion Church fire. The FBI Becomes Involved After the three failed to return to Meridan on time, CORE workers placed calls to the Neshoba County jail asking if the police had any information about the three civil rights workers. Jailer Minnie Herring denied any knowledge of their whereabouts. All of the events that took place after the three were imprisoned is uncertain but one thing is known for sure, they were never seen alive again. The date was June 21, 1964. By June 23, FBI agent John Proctor and a team of 10 agents, were in Neshoba Country investigating the disappearance of the three men. What the KKK had not counted on was the national attention that the three civil rights workers disappearance would ignite. Then, President,  Lyndon B. Johnson  put the pressure on J. Edgar Hoover to get the case solved. The first FBI office in Mississippi was opened and the military bused sailors into Neshoba County to help search for the missing men. The case became known as MIBURN, for Mississippi Burning, and top FBI Inspectors were sent to help with the investigation. The Investigation The FBI investigating the disappearance of the three civil rights workers in Mississippi in June 1964 were finally able to piece together the events that took place because of Ku Klux Klan informants who were there the evening of the murders. When in the Neshoba County jail, Schwerner asked to make a phone call and the request was refused.Price contacted Klansmen, Edgar Ray Killen, and informed him that he captured Schwerner.Killen called Neshoba and Lauderdale County Klansmen and organized a group for what was referred to as some butt ripping.  A meeting was held at a drive-in in Meridian with local Klan leaders.Another meeting was held later when it was decided that some of the younger Klan members would do the actual killings of the three civil right workers.Killen instructed the younger Klan members to purchase rubber gloves and they all met at 8:15 p.m., reviewed the plan on how the killings would take place and drove by the jail where the three were being held.  Killen then left the group to attend a wake for his deceased uncle.Price freed the three jailed men around 10 p.m. and followed them as they drove down Highway 19.A high-speed chase between Price and the CORE group ensued, and Chaney, who was driving, so on stopped the car and the three surrendered to Price. The three men were placed in Prices patrol car and Price, followed by two cars of young Klan members, drove down a dirt road called Rock Cut Road.The three were taken from the car and 26-year-old Wayne Roberts, shot Schwerner, then Goodman, then Chaney. Informant James Jordan told the FBI that Doyle Barnette also shot Chaney twice.The bodies were taken to a pre-arranged site owned by Olen Burrage. It was a 253-acre farm that had a dam site. The bodies were placed together in a hollow and covered with dirt. Price was not present during the disposal of the bodies.At 12:30 a.m., Price and Klan member, Neshoba County Sheriff Rainey had a meeting. Details of the meeting were not disclosed.On August 4, 1964, the FBI received information about the location of the bodies and they were uncovered at the dam site at the Old Jolly Farm. The Informant By December 1964, Klan member James Jordan, an informant for the FBI, had provided them with enough information to begin their arrests of 19 men in Neshoba and Lauderdale Counties, for conspiracy to deprive Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman of their civil rights. Charges Dismissed Within a week of the arrest of the 19 men, the U.S. Commissioner dismissed the charges ruling that Jordans confession that led to the arrests was hearsay. A federal grand jury in Jackson, MS, upheld the indictments against the 19 men but on February 24, 1965, Federal Judge William Harold Cox, well known for being a die-hard segregationist, said that only Rainey and Price acted under the color of state law and he threw out the other 17 indictments. It was not until March 1966 that the U.S. Supreme Court would overrule Cox and reinstate 18 of the 19 original indictments. The trial began on October 7, 1967, in Meridian, Mississippi with Judge Cox presiding. The entire trial permeated an attitude of racial prejudice and KKK kinship. The jury was an all white with one member an admitted ex-Klansman. Judge Cox, who had been heard referring to African Americans as chimpanzees, was of little help to the prosecutors. Three Klan informants, Wallace Miller, Delmar Dennis, and James Jordan, gave incriminating testimony about the details that led up to the murder and Jordan testified about the actual murder. The defense was made up of character witlessness, relatives, and neighbors testifying in support of the accused alibis. In the governments closing arguments, John Doar told the jurors that what he and the other lawyers said during the trial would soon be forgotten, but what you 12 do here today will long be remembered. On October 20, 1967, the verdict was decided. Out of the 18 defendants, seven were found guilty and eight not guilty. Those found guilty included, Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price, Imperial Wizard Sam Bowers, Wayne Roberts, Jimmy Snowden, Billey Posey, and Horace Barnett. Rainey and owner of the property where the bodies were uncovered, Olen Burrage were among those acquitted. The jury was unable to reach a verdict in the case of Edgar Ray Killen. Cox imposed sentence on December 29, 1967.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002 Essay

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002 - Essay Example The act replaced the Immigration Act of 1976 based on the need to eliminate discrimination and include refugees in the provisions of the act. The great depression, the ageing Canadian population, low levels of immigrants and economic benefits of immigrants are among the key reasons leading to the development of the act (Arakelian, 2008, pp.67-68). The transformation of the act to the new immigration and refugee protection act stems from the need to stamp out discrimination, encourage population growth and the need for skilled workers. The act has contributed immensely to economic development of Canada as well as promoting population growth and its use should be continuously supported (Beach, Green, & Reitz, 2003, p.167). This paper is going to look at the historical background of the act in terms of its development and values and ideologies that guide the legislation. It will provide statistics and global trends contributing to the act as well as other researches that have been done and which support and are in contrary of the act.it will then conduct a critical analysis of the legislation in terms of how well it serves the population, its strengths and any gaps that exist in service before finishing off with a conclusion that will provide a summary of what was discussed. Historical Background The first immigration act was passed in 1869 and this marked the foundation of Canada’s immigration policy. ... Immediately after the war, the nation experienced a number of setbacks and once again revised the act to a more exclusionary immigration policy aimed at encouraging harmony and control; although certain religions as well as ethnicities were barred from immigrating to Canada. This was followed by a further amendment in 1919 of section 38 prohibiting entry of certain races and nationalities (Westhues, 2006, p.20). After the Second World War, there was a change in attitudes as well as unprecedented economic growth. The senate in 1951 recommended the return of the open door policy stance on immigration which led to a new act in 1952 that did not include much of the proposed changes and continued to discriminate against races and people on economic grounds. A more inclusive policy was arrived at in 1967 that eliminated racial discrimination. 1969 saw the inclusion of refugees into the policy widening increasing chances of people who could immigrate to Canada. Amendments continued until 20 02 when the immigration and refugee protection act was established (Kelley & Trebilcock, 2010, p.11-13). Westhues (2006, p.23) argues that the rationale and ideologies at this time was to attract an influx of immigrants in order to boost the economic growth of the nation. Coming up with the immigration policy was seen as a way of increasing the country’s demand for domestic products and stimulate the nation’s manufacturing sector. At this time also, there were large tracts of land that were unoccupied and thus the need to fill this land with people. The idea of filling up the unoccupied land was as a result of the need to ensure sovereignty of the nation which was an important factor at this time. Therefore it is only through a

Navy Seals Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Navy Seals - Research Paper Example nd air.) My stance on this paper will be that the NAVY Seals are a viable, necessary part of the Modern military not only in history but today as well they are a much needed force in today’s wars to combat terrorism and conflicts (Navy Seal History, N.D.) In the Second World War when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, America wanted to retaliate, however they were facing unknown, unseen enemies. Their soldiers became the target of landmines and other hazards. Thus the need of a force was felt which can clear the ground for the forces and comeback with enemy intelligence. They were called Naval combat demolition units. They underwent heavy training focusing mainly on physical endurance. Their training included carrying heavy leads, running, swimming and maneuvering small boats. Later they came to be known as Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT). In 1961 when an ally of America was fighting with an ally of Russia, US wanted to help his or her own ally. The Navy felt the need of a Special operations Unit building on the basis of UDT. Hence, Navy Seals was born. Their primary task was to clear the way for the Navy, obstruct enemy communication and destroy enemy ammunitions. (Obringer, Navy Seal History, N.D.)Â   The US Navy Seals are approximately 2200 in numbers, worldwide and they have special divisions within them who specialize in a particular territory. SEALS risk their lives and as per their motto of serving the country first and not individuals. They are called quiet professionals because most of their missions are highly secret and they cannot discuss their lives even with their wives. They get special training for in water demolition and scuba diving as most of their operations are in and around water-bodies. This is of strategic importance because in today’s world majority of the population in cities live within close range of water bodies. SEALS fight enemies of US all over the world. It can be a task to free hostages, or fighting with terrorists all over the

Welsh Migration in the late 19th century Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Welsh Migration in the late 19th century - Essay Example Wales occupies the western part of the island of Great Britain facing the sea across Ireland. It was settled by Celts thousands of years ago and, by nature of the rugged mountainous terrain that isolated it from the rest of the island, the Welsh developed a culture, language, and history that is distinguishable from the rest of the U.K. With three sides facing the sea - the Irish Sea to the north, Bristol Channel on the south, and St. George's Channel and Cardigan Bay in the west-Wales developed to become a major source of seafarers and a centre of shipping. Cardiff, the Welsh capital, has one of the best natural seaports in the kingdom. Tucked at the south-eastern corner and close to the boundary between Wales and England, Cardiff's seaport towns of Tiger Bay and Butetown provided a perfect crossroads for ships and their cargoes of goods and people to and from England and the rest of the world. This explains partly why the Welsh are tough, universal, and open to other cultures as the exposure to other peoples have taught them to be tolerant in human nature and temperament. This also justifies why the Welsh are amongst the most daring of English peoples to settle in far-off lands like Australia and Patagonia. Wales is also a land rich with natural resources, mainly coal, iron, slate, gold, and other metals. This is why mining was the main industry and source of employment for many years, supported by the presence of shipyards and ports that brought in workers from over the world to mine the land and ship out coal and other minerals that were sold to the world. Industrial Revolution and Immigration The industrial revolution in late 18th century England caused a huge demand for coal, the fuel that provided the energy needed by steam engines in so-called manufactories producing anything from steel pins to textile. The wealth boom is much like what we are witnessing with the oil-producing nations of our century, as coal was then the oil of industry. The revolution caused a huge demand for raw materials and minerals and, because of economic wealth, a parallel demand for gold and building materials was generated. This led to the opening of more mines to extract natural resources and finding new and more efficient ways to transport these materials to other parts of England and the world. Amongst the results was an explosion in the demand for workers. Initially, these workers consisted of British and Welsh farmers displaced by the drop in agricultural labour demand due to higher wages being earned by work in factories instead of farmlands. This resulted in internal migration from other parts of Wales and the British Isles until the middle of the 19th century into the southern counties of Bridgend, Rhondda, Glamorgan, Merthyr, and Cardiff. However, in such a rough and sparsely populated land, the supply of labour was soon exhausted, so the people had to come from abroad. The magnitude of the immigration phenomenon can be grasped by looking at Welsh population figures in the early, middle, and later 19th century: 600,000 in 1801, 1.2 million in 1851, and 2 million by 1901. In the last decade of the 19th century, an estimated 240,000 immigrants moved into the coalfields of South Wales. Glamorgan's population boomed from 70,000 in 1801 to 1.1 million by 1901, whilst Rhondda's exploded from

Why did jammu and kashmir conflict start

Why did jammu and kashmir conflict start Since 1989 Jammu and Kashmir has been the most important issue in the Indias internal security scenario. Jammu and Kashmir was a major site of the extremely bloody 1947 war. The first few years saw a relative domination by terrorist group when the casualties were mainly civilians. Jammu and Kashmir which lies in the northwest of the subcontinent bordering china. At the time of partition -the British provinces divide two countries India and Pakistan the Hindu majority on the side of India and the Muslim majority on the side of Pakistan and j s k one such a rich pricey and nature rich state had a vesicular problem. Because its the state is in India at the time of partition means under Hindu majority but having Muslim population. In 1947 the population of Kashmir is 77% of Muslims and 20 % of Hindu. After the partition both the country claims that J and k is theirs country state but the result they had wars with each others many times over this region. In 1987 the alliance won and Faroo q Abdullah was the chief minister of the Kashmir. The relation between India and Pakistan is soured. They fought three times in 1947 to 1948, in 1965 and in 1971.so in this quarrel then United Nations invited. From the Indian side it instead that the no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars. The Jammu and Kashmir are has been administrated by both India and Pakistan .The insurgency was first predominant in Srinagar when militants were largely Kashmirs youth. Muslims are majority in poonch, rajouri, kisth, and doda. And the Shia Muslims make for majority in kargil region. The definition of insurgency means is an armed rebellion against a authority (for ex- which recognised by the United Nations) those who taking part in this rebellion are not recognised by any nation. Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir existed in various forms. It includes, civilians, Kashmir are, Indian armed forced and foreign militants etc. Kashmir has been the target by all the sides in the conflict. After the elections of 1987 some of the state legislative assembly formed groups or militant wings and further more that has started a catalyst for the insurgency. And it was the starting point of the insurgency in j and k .According the press release there were 3,400 cases of disappearances. U.S intelligences also believes that the al-Qaeda and Taliban are helping to organizing terror camps in Kashmir to foment conflicts it has left more than 4.7000 people dead till 2009.and in the year of 2000 because of insurgencies 31,000 Indian civilians lost their lives .terror camps play a central role in this Insurgencies. The Pakistans inter services intelligence has been accused by India many times to supporting and training terrorists. Like between India and Pakistan. The government believes that the terrorists groups from Afghanistan entered in to this region with the help of isi (Pakistans intelligence).since then the violence has increased significantly in stre ngth. Some parties which are present in the j and k are demanding for an independent Kashmir these parties names are hurriyat conference and Jammu and Kashmir liberation front. Other militant groups favour as a Pakistani Kashmir. It is hard to determine the total numbers of casualties. Because in Jammu and Kashmir it is very common after the partition. Kashmir continuous to remain at the highest volatile region in the world with a highest average of 2,500 every year. Every individual has his or her own ideology so some fight in the name of the religion and some are for independent Kashmir. Several new groups and organisation have also emerged. India claims that the there are also other afghan, Egyptian and Bangladeshi terror active in Jammu and Kashmir. And Is I is the main suppliers of funds and support these groups. But the Pakistani government always denied these type of statements to India. Richer Bennett, a British intelligence analyst that the isi helped these militant groups and has many of their attacks both within the Kashmir and the other major big cities of India. There are between 2,600 to 3,600 militant camps across Pakistan and Pakistan administrated Kashmir. The FBI has also produced images of camps which are located in pok. India claims that the every year thousand of armed and terrorists cross the loc and enter into the Indias administrated Kashmir and spread the terror. During a piece summit between Pakistans former president pervej Mushrraf and Indias former president Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Jan 2004.pakistan assured that they would do everything possible to curb the activities any training camps on its territory. But the violence has continued despite three year long peace process between India and Pakistan. In 2005 there were 166 incidents in the result 201 people are died. So all the problem faced by both the country people. Islamabad has done little to stop the training camps on its soil it was the statement by p. mussaraf the former pri me minister of Pakistan the statement was a truly fake or false statement. Covered by the media. However India claims that the Islamabad supports these terror groups. Thousand of pandits move from Kashmir because of terror. Not much about these groups some says that they collaborate and they are the members of an alliance known as united jihad council. the two groups which India says they were behind the attack in parliament in New Delhi .they are known as jaish -e-Mohammed and lashkar -e- toiba. They are in the favour of Pakistans Kashmir. They are believed to be the members of u g c. In a letter to American people written by Osama bin laden he stated the reasons that why he was fighting against America is because of her support to India on the Kashmir issue. The u .s secretary of defence on a trip to New Delhi in 2002 suggested that al-Qaeda was active in Kashmir. India says that the it was jaish e Mohammed who hijacked the Indian airline flight I c 814 to Kandahar and to force th e Indian government to release the commander of Jaish e Mohammed named Maulana Masood azhar and also attacked the assembly of Kashmir in 2001. All the support or you can say the arms given to them by Pakistan military or i s i. Between august 1988 and at the end of 1989 JKLF was the only terrorist group present in insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Later the I s I promot them. The main work of I s I is to give arms to the militants and help them to shifted them to Indians administrated Kashmir. Because of terrorism the state, tourism has been badly affected. Insurgency is the most threatening attempt by Pakistan. It has used to seize the state. Pakistan knows that it this phase of insurgency does not flair up into an open war. The situation came closer in june1999 in the Kargil region when Pakistans army regulars were detected holding positions in peaks of loc. India frequently warned many a times to Pakistan that finish that terrorists camps but Pakistan government always indulged th e statements that their country is peaceful and no terror activities involved by their country. Some of Pakistans Organistaions report that Indian armed forces have been responsible for the death of 4,500 Kashmiri. So Pakistan have also point out India many time In the year of 1990 to 1999 there are 4,242 cases of rape of womens in Kashmir. Another reason of dispute over Kashmir is water. Jehlum and Chenab which flows in Pakistan and the three river ravi , Sutlej and beas irrigate in northern India. In 1960 the Indus water treaty signed to resolved the most of dispute over the sharing of water. But the Pakistan raised the issue when India constructed the dams on its side and which limit water to Pakistans side. How to control the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir? There is a possibility of changing everything for the good. Religious terrorism is a major part of today. Both the countries should take steps for remove the terrorists parties from their country specially for Pakistan. Pakistan needs to destroys all the camps of terrorists. Because it is the time to finish the issue not to make the issue. So, it is our responsibility to stop the terrorist attacks and to fight with terrorists. .We had already soft on the terror. There are only four or five countries which fight like a child war for states. We have done nothing except kill our men and people of the other countries. Both the countries India and Pakistan have same religions , currency and etc so we are the two faces of one coin. Respect the other religions. I DREAM THAT THE INDIA WE LEAVE BEHIND WILL BE MUCH MORE WONDERFUL THAN THE INDIA WE INHERITED. I SINCERELY HOPE YOU SHARE MY DREAM.THANK YOU

Cross Analysis Of The Shambaa Tribe :: essays research papers

I gained a personal interest in the Shambaa Tribe when one if its members Mufika Badu came and spoke to our high school peer-group. I learned a lot of very interesting things about the people of the Shambaa tribe and the different aspects of their culture, and how they differ from the every day culture that I am exposed to.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Shambaa, also referred to as the Shambala, are a Bantu people found mainly on the West Usambara mountain range in Tanzania. Their language is Shambala. The homeland of the Shambaa is called Shambaai.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Kings and queens rule the Shambaa people. The Shambaa kingdom is made up of several descant groups with a common origin, but a single descent group governs the kingdom. The survival of the whole descent and its steady increase in size is crucial, because the Shambaa people take great pride in the culture and they don’t wont their clan to die out. The king rules over several chiefdoms. The chiefs were appointed by he king and received tribute from their chiefdoms as representatives of the king. All the wealth of the land is regarded as the king’s. This gives him control of his subjects and the right to demand tribute from them. The king, in return, is expected to bring rain and food to his territory. Maulid is a popular holiday celebrated by the Shambaa people in which the people gather with family members and give thanks to the king in hope that he will bring good fortune to their family in the upcoming year (â€Å"Life In The Shambaa Nation†) .   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Peasants and slaves are the king’s subjects. Peasants live in village groups under a patriarchal system. Badu described the life of a peasant as being very difficult with work days lasting from sun up until sunset, laboring in the scorching heat with only a few breaks (Mufika Buda). The peasants are free to go about their daily work on the farm and the homestead. They pay their tribute to the king in the form of food, life stock and labor.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The gender role of the Shambaa is very different then than that of the United States in that children start to play an active role in the work place at an early age. If a child is not of capable of working in the field he must stay home and tend to the younger children (Garson,W.